Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 10
August 28, 1958
NUMBER 17, PAGE 1,9b-10

The More He Struggles The Deeper He Sinks

James W. Adams, Nacogdoches, Texas

Quicksand is extremely treacherous. Once trapped in its clutches, the more the victim struggles the deeper he sinks. Brother Thomas B. Warren's antics in the so-called "Spiritual Sword" remind me of the frenzied struggles of a quicksand victim. Some months ago, the brother wrote a review of the Cogdill-Woods debate conducted in Birmingham, Alabama. In this review, he charged Cogdill with taking the position at Birmingham that one church cannot send a tract or a New Testament to another church. Upon reading this charge we felt obligated to call attention to the misrepresentation of brother Cogdill which it contained, hence wrote an article in the Gospel Guardian (April 3, 1958.) exposing Warren's misrepresentation. Warren's reaction to this was to write a lengthy answer in the April issue of his "Spiritual Sword", and two months later to devote an entire issue of eight pages in a futile and ridiculous effort to "fix" the matter. It would have been much simpler for him to have acknowledged his misrepresentation and to have apologized, but that is not his method of operation.

The Question Mark Looms Larger And Larger

From the beginning of brother Warren's so-called "change" on the issues about which he raves in his rabble-rousing sheet, his conduct has been questionable. The meeting between him, Roy Deaver, Yater Tant, and this writer at Lufkin two weeks prior to the Tant-Harper debate at Abilene, Texas which Warren has so widely publicized was arranged under false pretenses. Brother Warren sought the appointment under the guise of one who held the same position as Brother Tant desiring to be of help to Tant in his forthcoming debate. Warren came to the Lufkin meeting already changed in his views, left the meeting without ever letting it be known that such was the case (we were left with the impression that Warren and Deaver had advanced their argument simply as a matter of helping Tant anticipate what line of attack Harper might conceivably take and were not advised that the argument represented their convictions.), and two weeks later appeared as a rabid supporter of Brother Harper and his position in the Abilene debate. He appeared in the debate as Harper's moderator and reportedly made a fanatical effort to funnel Brother Harper with his involved "total situation" argument. We hold that Warren had every right to change his position if and when he became convinced he was wrong, yea more, that it was his duty to change. However, for him to seek to pick Tant's brains under the guise of friend, brother, confidant, and counselor two weeks before the Abilene debate that he might use what he gained to aid Harper was gross, inexcusable hypocrisy. We wish there were a nice way to say this, but a fact so repulsive defies expression in terminology less harsh.

He Sinks As He Struggles

From the incident just related as a beginning, Brother Warren has grown progressively more bitter and frenzied in his preaching, debating, and writing. He has reached the point where he can hardly open his mouth without applying to those who differ from him on current issues some derogatory epithet or misrepresentation of their position. In the debate with Brother Cecil B. Douthitt at Houston, Texas, he plumbed the depths of exaggerative bitterness by characterizing the position of those who differ from him as follows: "Of all the ungodly, Christ-denying doctrines that I have run up against, this is the main one." His cartoons, used so lavishly by Brother Woods at Birmingham, were masterpieces of distortion and misrepresentation. His paper, "The Spiritual Sword," could hardly contain more monstrous caricatures of the truth. Surely the question mark beside his honesty which he caused to exist by his chicanery in arranging the Lufkin "study" (?) prior to the Abilene debate looms larger and larger each succeeding week. The more he struggles in the bog-hole of deception, distortion, and misrepresentation the deeper he sinks. His answer (?) to our charge concerning his misrepresentation of Cogdill, instead of vindicating him, but involves him in another gross, willful misrepresentation of both Cogdill and Adams.

Warren's Latest

Warren tries desperately to make it appear that Adams charged him with misrepresentation because he called attention to what he conceives to be "the logical consequences" of Cogdill's position at Birmingham. Adams did nothing of the kind and nobody knows this better than Thomas B. Warren. Warren simply erects this misrepresentation of Adams as a "straw man" that he might with fanatical zeal tear its "stuffing" out in some ten or twelve pages of his blasphemously entitled "Spiritual Sword." Adams has never at any time or place opposed calling attention to the logical consequences of any man's doctrine. Warren's numerous quotations from the Cogdill-Jackson Debate" and from our "Review of Albert Garner" are utterly wasted. Throughout our preaching experience we have always insisted that men face the logical consequences of their doctrines. We are not conscious, however, of ever having charged a man with assuming a position which he has not expressly avowed. If such we have done, we should apologize to him whether it be Albert Garner, D. N. Jackson, Thomas B. Warren, or someone else. Warren's excerpts from our writings do not show that we charged Garner with any position which he does not avow.

Brother Warren is such a great logician that he is surely familiar with this often quoted statement from "Elements of Logic" by Levi Hedge:

"As controversy, especially when carried on from motives of victory or reputation, is liable to be productive of evil rather than good. It is incumbent on all, who engage in it, from whatever motives, to observe rigorously those laws and principles by which the former may be avoided and the latter secured. The following rules, sometimes called canons of controversy, have been highly approved by writers of learning and discernment."

"Rule 6th. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him, who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them. If an absurd consequence be fairly deducible from any doctrine, it is rightly concluded that the doctrine is false; but it is not rightly concluded, that he, who advances it, supports the absurd consequence. The charitable presumption, in such case, would be that he had never made the deduction; and that, if he had made it, he would have abandoned the original doctrine." (Page 161, 162.)

Adams made a clear distinction between calling attention to the logical consequences of a man's doctrine and charging him with assuming such a position in the very article in which he charged Warren with misrepresentation. Warren knows this. Thomas B. Warren, whatever else may be said of him, is not obtuse but is an able man with a keen, analytical, well-trained mind. Note again, Brother Warren, what we wrote:

"To charge a thing as a consequence logically deducible from an opponent's argument is one thing. To represent such as a position actually assumed by an opponent is another."

(Front page, Gospel Guardian, April 3, 1958) Adams charged Warren with misrepresentation because he did the latter, not the former. Warren, therefore, not only misrepresented Cogdill, but he misrepresents Adams when he seeks to make it appear that Adams opposes calling attention to the logical consequences of a man's doctrine. In answering this, we wonder what Warren's next misrepresentation will be. There is no way of telling if we can judge the future by the past.

Anent "Facing The Consequences"

Warren has much to say concerning our fear with reference to the consequences of our position. We have complete confidence in the scripturalness of our position, hence fear none of its true consequences however unreasonable they may seem to the "greatest thinking machine" (?) of the age. Let it be noted, however, that we categorically deny that what Warren conceives to be the logical consequences of our position are indeed its logical consequences. Brother Warren permits his own deductions and the truth to become hopelessly entangled. Speaking of "logical consequences," even a tyro in logic can see that the logical conclusion one must reach from the title of Warren's paper, "The Spiritual Sword," a title given by inspiration to God's word, is that Warren confuses his deductions, arguments, and conclusions with the word of God. Now Brother Warren will likely disavow this. If so, will he change the name of his paper or defend his right to apply such a title to it?

Concerning the sending of a tract or a New Testament from one church to another, Cogdill did not deny at Birmingham that such might be done if the church were in need. He said, however, that there is a vast difference between this and a church becoming the distributing agency for New Testaments for the entire brotherhood and thousands of churches sending their funds to that church that she might perform their work of distributing New Testaments for them. The latter situation is parallel to the Herald of Truth and was what Woods was defending in the Birmingham debate. The former situation was not an issue, is not an issue, and never will produce an issue among God's people. In introducing such, Woods and Warren betray their own fear of meeting the issue that does exist squarely.

The best evidence of the positions taken by Cogdill in the Birmingham debate is the debate itself. It is now in print. What Brother Warren must do if he is to vindicate his honesty is to find in the printed book where Cogdill stated that "one church cannot send a New Testament or tract to another church." It will not suffice for him to point to some statement from Cogdill from which he, Warren thinks such a deduction may logically be made. He has charged Cogdill with assuming such a position. He must, therefore, find where Cogdill made such a statement. He has not produced it yet from the tapes. If he cannot produce it from the printed book, he is indicted with a misrepresentation in his review of the debate and with dishonesty in his subsequent efforts to cover his original falsification.

Will Warren Face The Consequences? Brother Warren is the last man in the country who should talk about anyone "facing the consequences." At Lufkin, Fort Worth, and Abilene the consequences of Warren's "total situation" argument were printed out to him; namely, that his contention that whatever the elders of a congregation assume oversight of becomes their own, exclusive work would justify the elders of a single congregation assuming oversight over all the evangelistic work in the world and all the churches sending their funds to that eldership to accomplish the task. Warren has admitted that such logically followed from his argument. He has avowed this consequence before many reputable witnesses both at Lufkin and Fort Worth, and in each case, expressed his "fear" of it. At the Houston, Texas debate, he took refuge from this fearful consequence in "the judgment of the elders." He said that the "judgment of the elders" would keep such from happening. At Lufkin, he told us that such would be scriptural but not expedient. Will Warren face the consequences of his argument? Will he affirm: It is in harmony with the Scriptures for one eldership to assume oversight over all the evangelistic work in the world and for all the congregations to send their funds to said elders for the accomplishment of the task? Surely our boastful brother is not "afraid of the consequences" of his position? We deny that Warren's deductions are the logical consequences of our position. Warren, however, has avowed the consequences mentioned above. Having avowed them, will he defend them?

Honesty Or The Lack Of It Does Not Settle The Issue

We are cognizant of the fact that our sincerity or lack of it questioned so frequently by insinuation in "The Spiritual Sword" cannot determine the truth involved in current issues. Nor does Brother Warren's manifest lack of honesty in his dealings with us prove his position wrong or ours correct. Such will, however, determine the destiny of his soul and ours as well as the destiny of the 'souls of those whom we may influence. May God help us, therefore, to deal candidly with one another and with the word of God by which we shall be judged in the last day.